User:Carlematsu/Information Control Division/Khascall Peer Review


 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carlematsu/Information_Control_Division


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Control_Division

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The article does not have a lead section per se, and this should be added. The first section of the new draft of the article provides an overview -- because it has a header, Wikipedia is not treating it as a lead section. The lead sentence should include the fact that this department was oriented to controlling German media.

Content

The author has added relevant information; the content appears up to date. The locations information might be heading a little bit off-subject but I think it could be brought back into focus with some tweaking -- were there offices of the ICD in each occupied zone? The word 'branch' is used a little bit inconsistently -- were there 4 branches, one per medium/category? Or is this branch as in remote office locations? As the emphasis shifted to the Cold War, what happened to the Russian-controlled zone? One question that this article does not answer right now is how people responded to this organization and how it has been regarded in history. There may be some academic sources on this topic. This article does not directly address equity gaps, but this may be a neglected (conveniently ignored?) aspect of a well-known topic. It looks like there is an intention to write a section about Discontinuation; that sounds like a good addition. Also, the text does not include any examples of known actions taken by the ICD.

Tone and Balance

The content reads as neutral and I do not see anything heavily biased. However, without information about critiques or actions taken, the article seems to present the ICD in a favorable light; this may be reasonable and valid, but it's hard to know without more information.

Sources and References

The new content is generally referenced, but tends to rely on a book I don't have access to, so there's not too much I can say here. That said, Reference 1 is dead; can the original be found? Reference 2 (Shandley 2010) seems to be misformatted. Ref 3 is a book. Ref 4 looks ok but doesn't have much to say, Ref 5 to dbpedia is not the type of source Wikipedia is looking for (and doesn't seem to support the text for which it is a reference). Ref 6 is self-published and not a reliable source. Refs 7, 8, and 9 look good. A little more digging in academic articles seems warranted -- there seems to be a lot available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=%22information+control+division%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48

Organization

The content is well written and clear, with few errors. The new sections make sense.

Images and Media

The new images look good and have useful captions.

Overall impressions

The author is clearly making progress on this article and making it more complete. Cleaning up the lead, adding a few more solid references, expanding if possible, and finishing the Discontinuation section will all be welcome additions. Kaylea Champion (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)